| Course | MCO-7400 Management Communications |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Written assignment: change and innovation |
| Length | About 939 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MCO 7400 Module 7
Why, Why Now and What It Means for Me: Communicating a County's System Change
Student Name
Master of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University
MCO-7400: Management Communications
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Why, Why Now and What It Means for Me: Communicating a County's System Change
Purpose
This report designs the communication plan for Harlan County, a composite county government with 1,300 employees, as it replaces its 22-year-old payroll, purchasing and finance system with a cloud-based enterprise resource planning system. The technical project is on schedule, but a pilot in two departments revealed confusion and resistance. The plan applies research on readiness for change and the course text's guidance on communicating change and innovation.
The Problem
In the pilot, the project team announced the change in one email and a training schedule. A follow-up survey of pilot departments found that 41 percent of supervisors could not explain why the county was replacing the system, 36 percent of employees believed their jobs might be eliminated, and help desk calls tripled in the first two weeks, mostly about tasks covered in training that people had not connected to their daily work. Two payroll clerks with long service openly told colleagues the old system worked fine. The communication had told people what would happen but not why, why now or what it meant for them.
Research on Change Messages
Armenakis and Harris (2009), reflecting on decades of research, identify five components of a change message that build readiness. Discrepancy means people see a gap between how things are and how they should be. Appropriateness means they think this particular change fits the gap. Efficacy means confidence that the change can actually be accomplished. Principal support means they see leaders and respected colleagues behind it. Personal valence means they expect to gain from it, or at least not lose. They argue that resistance often signals a missing component, so leaders should treat it as information rather than defiance.
Clampitt (2016) adds that change communication works best as a continuing conversation, not an announcement, and that managers should expect uncertainty and address it directly, since rumors fill any silence. Oreg et al. (2011), reviewing six decades of quantitative studies of how employees react to change, found that features of the change process, including the information people receive, the chance to participate and the support they are given, are consistently linked to how recipients respond, which makes communication a lever leaders control.
Diagnosis of the Pilot
The pilot's communication addressed only efficacy, through training, and even that was weak because training was not tied to daily tasks. Discrepancy was missing: no one explained that the old system's vendor ends support next year, that the county's auditor found 23 manual workarounds in payroll, or that paper purchasing approvals take an average of 11 days. Personal valence was negative because no one said that no positions would be eliminated. Principal support was invisible; the county administrator never spoke about the project. The two long-serving clerks' resistance signaled missing discrepancy and personal valence, not stubbornness.
The Communication Plan
The countywide plan is organized by phase, with each message component assigned to a source and channel.
| Phase | Main message component | Source and channel |
|---|---|---|
| Eight weeks before launch | Discrepancy and appropriateness: vendor support ends, audit findings, 11-day approvals | County administrator in department meetings and a short video |
| Six weeks before | Personal valence: no layoffs; what changes for each role | Supervisors in team meetings, with role-specific one-page guides |
| Four to one week before | Efficacy: training built on each role's ten most common tasks | Trainers and department change agents |
| Launch week | Principal support and efficacy: leaders visible, help close by | Administrator visits; floor support in each building |
| First 90 days | Efficacy and valence: early wins, fixes made from feedback | Biweekly update, pulse surveys, change agent meetings |
Three features run through every phase. A network of 45 change agents, one or two respected employees from each department, will receive early briefings, answer questions locally and report concerns upward each week. Two-way channels, including a question form answered publicly each week and short pulse surveys after launch, give employees a voice and give the project team information. Resistant employees, such as the two clerks, will be invited to test workflows before launch, since their knowledge of the old system's workarounds is valuable and their involvement can turn skepticism into ownership.
Measures and Trade-offs
Success measures include supervisors' ability to explain the reason for the change, targeted above 85 percent in a pre-launch survey; the share of employees worried about job loss, targeted below 10 percent; help desk calls per employee in the first month compared with the pilot; and on-time completion of the first two payrolls. The plan costs staff time, especially for change agents and supervisors, and slows launch preparation slightly. It also commits leaders to promises, such as no layoffs, that they must keep. Those costs are small compared with the price of a failed payroll.
A Sample Message for the Launch Phase
The administrator's launch-week message to all employees would read in part: 'Today our payroll and finance work moves to the new system. The old system's vendor ends support next year, and this change removes the 23 manual workarounds our auditor found and the 11 days it now takes to approve a purchase. No one will lose a job because of this change. Floor support staff are in every building this week, your department change agent can answer questions, and I will visit each department before Friday.'
Conclusion
The pilot showed that training alone does not prepare people for change. A plan that explains why the county must change, why this system, what it means for each person and who stands behind it, delivered by leaders and peers through two-way channels, addresses the components research identifies and treats resistance as useful information.
References
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879079
Clampitt, P. G. (2016). Communicating for managerial effectiveness: Challenges, strategies, solutions (6th ed.). SAGE.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
MCO 7400 Module 7 instructions, in plain terms
Module 7 of MCO-7400 covers communicating change and innovation, and this managerial report applies that module; the outline available to the public does not assign the three written assignments to modules. Expect a scenario involving a new system, reorganization or innovation that employees must adopt. Diagnose what earlier communication missed using a research framework, then design a plan organized by phase, with messages, sources and channels for each. Include two-way channels and a way to treat resistance as information. Set measures and acknowledge costs. Keep the report concise, with a table for the plan, and cite the course text and research in APA style. Show how each phase builds on the one before.
How this MCO 7400 Module 7 example is built
The report starts from evidence about what went wrong in a pilot, which gives the plan a clear target. A research framework with five message components is explained and then used to diagnose the pilot, so each gap has a name and a remedy. The plan appears as a table by phase, assigning each component to a source and channel, followed by three features that apply throughout. Measures have numeric targets, and the trade-offs section recognizes the commitments leaders are making. Notice how resistant employees are treated as sources of information and invited into testing, an application of the research rather than a slogan. The plan could be adopted as written.
Reading the MCO 7400 Module 7 grading rubric
As with other MCO-7400 reports, the mark runs from 0 to 100 on the course rubric. Mentors reward plans grounded in evidence about the audience, correct use of research on change communication, and specific messages, sources and channels for each phase. Two-way communication and attention to resistance show understanding of the module. Measurable goals and honest trade-offs add strength. The report should model clear managerial writing, with a purpose statement, headings, a table and concise paragraphs, along with correct APA citations. Plans that rely on a single announcement or generic training, or that treat resistance as a problem to suppress, usually lose points. Plans that treat employees as partners in the change tend to earn the most credit.
Common MCO 7400 Module 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A common weakness is a change plan that lists channels, such as email, intranet and town halls, without saying what each will communicate or why. Another is ignoring the personal question every employee asks: what does this mean for me? Our writers can prepare MCO 7400 change communication plans for the scenario your module presents. Begin by finding out what employees currently believe about the change, through a survey or interviews. Map the gaps to the five message components, assign each to a credible source, and schedule them by phase. Build in feedback, set measures and plan how to involve skeptics early. Revisit the plan after launch and adjust it.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MCO 7400 and Master of Business Administration sample papers
- MCO 7400 Module 1: Communication Models Applied to a Failure
- MCO 7400 Module 2: Rewriting an Office Closure Announcement
- MCO 7400 Module 3: Channel Choice for a Hybrid Firm
- MCO 7400 Module 4: Redesigning Charts for a Transit Board
- MCO 7400 Module 5: Planning a Capital Request Presentation
- MCO 7400 Module 6: Stakeholder Communication in the CrowdStrike Outage
- MCO 7400 Module 8: Final Project: Communication Audit Report
- FIN 7100 Module 5: Final Investment Recommendation Paper
- ORR 7100 Module 3: Application Exercise: Choosing a Multiple Case Design and a Sampling Plan
- SOP 7200 Module 1: Operations Strategy Problems
- MKM 7000 Module 2: Midterm Case Analysis Paper
MCO 7400 Module 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MCO 7400 Module 7 sample paper?
The report above designs a change communication plan for a composite county government's system replacement, using Armenakis and Harris's five message components.
What are the five components of a change message?
A sense that change is needed, that this change fits, that it can be done, that leaders back it and that it benefits the individual.
Why treat resistance as information?
Resistance often shows which message component is missing, such as why change is needed or what it means for the individual, so it guides what to communicate next.
What is a change agent network?
A group of respected employees from across the organization who receive early briefings, answer questions locally and report concerns back to the project team.
Is training enough to prepare employees for a new system?
No; training builds efficacy, but people also need to understand why the change is needed, why this solution, who supports it and how it affects them.